1951
DOI: 10.1007/bf03397290
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Cobalt Self-Diffusion: A Study of the Method of Decrease in Surface Activity

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
6
0

Year Published

1966
1966
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 12 publications
(8 citation statements)
references
References 2 publications
0
6
0
Order By: Relevance
“…On average the fractional error indicated from the experimental reproducibility was in some cases found to be as large as + 20%. This figure is slightly greater than the generally accepted standard of accuracy in diffusion studies, which is between + 5% and + 15%, see for example Ruder & Birchenall (1951) and Huntington et al (1961). The discrepancy between the calculated error and that found experimentally indicated that other sources of error were involved of which the following are examples: a) The layers removed during grinding were removed in such a way that the newly exposed face was not parallel to the original diffusion interface.…”
Section: 34 Total Error In Dmentioning
confidence: 73%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…On average the fractional error indicated from the experimental reproducibility was in some cases found to be as large as + 20%. This figure is slightly greater than the generally accepted standard of accuracy in diffusion studies, which is between + 5% and + 15%, see for example Ruder & Birchenall (1951) and Huntington et al (1961). The discrepancy between the calculated error and that found experimentally indicated that other sources of error were involved of which the following are examples: a) The layers removed during grinding were removed in such a way that the newly exposed face was not parallel to the original diffusion interface.…”
Section: 34 Total Error In Dmentioning
confidence: 73%
“…The method is rendered inaccurate by the experimental difficulties of reducing the heating and cooling times for each anneal to a minimum, and by surface diffusion, which will contribute a decrease in the surface activity. The method demands a knowledge of the absorption behaviour of the radiation (-Ruder & Birchenall 1951), since not all the activity measured can be attributed to the surface atoms. The method therefore is more applicable to systems in which the absorption is large.…”
Section: The Surface Decrease Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The results of the assessed mobilities are listed in Table 1. In Campbell et al [5] assessed the atomic mobility for the self-diffusion of fcc-Co and compared it with the early experimental data [19,20] (in fact, the authors misread the Co impurity diffusivity in fcc-Ni [20] as the self-diffusivity in fcc-Co). Only two more recent experimental data [21,22] were considered in the present work.…”
Section: Assessment Of Atomic Mobilitymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This result is also expected because the surface energy values of metals are much higher than the glass surface, as shown in Table 1 resulting in large equilibrium contact angles (θ |equilibrium ) of Ag 38 and Co 39 on glass surface are 123 and 101°, respectively. However, the change in total surface area of Ag deposit is much higher than the Co deposit after annealing at 573 K. This is because the surface self-diffusion coefficient of Ag is ∼10 4 times higher than Co at 573 K. 40,41 Mass transfer in Ag nanostructure occurs primarily from nanotriangular pyramid corners rather than edges, as shown in the Figure 2c,d by the yellow outline triangle, due to higher chemical potential of Ag atoms in the corner region compared to edge region. This effect also occurs in Co nanostructure annealing, but at much smaller rates due to the lower self-diffusivity.…”
Section: ■ Analysis and Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%